ArticleDigital health
Treatment choices for depression: Young people's response to a traditional e-health versus a Health 2.0 website.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Usability of Health Information Websites Designed for Adolescents: Systematic Review, Neurodevelopmental Model, and Design Brief.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis exploratory experimental study compared young people's credibility appraisals and behavioural intentions following exposure to depression treatment information on a Health 2.0 website versus a traditional website. The traditional website listed evidence-based treatment recommendations for depression as judged by field experts. The Health 2.0 website contained information about how helpful each treatment was, as aggregated from feedback from young people with lived experience of depression.
methodParticipants (
resultsParticipants in the traditional website condition rated their website as significantly more influential than did participants presented with the Health 2.0 website. This difference in treatment influence was fully accounted for the participants' perception of credibility of the information provided by the websites.
conclusionThe traditional website was rated as significantly more credible and influential than the Health 2.0 website. Treatment decisions appeared to be based on the extent to which online information appears credible. In conclusion, health-related content was perceived by users as more credible when endorsed by experts than by other users, and perceived message credibility appears to be a powerful determinant of behavioural intentions within the e-health setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.